Article

2004-06-17 China-Japan-Koreas

U.S. troop pullouts: Thereâs a political message, too

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by tipper 2004-06-17 1:24:44 AM|| || Front Page|| [11127 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 ... where they would have more room to train and would be closer to South Korea.

Not according to this map.

Posted by Steve White 2004-06-17 1:29:56 AM|| 2004-06-17 1:29:56 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Steve, I think the idea might be that we would be in a better position to support Taiwan. I may be wrong I couldn't zoom on the map.

Posted by Super Hose 2004-06-17 2:36:47 AM|| 2004-06-17 2:36:47 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Politically, the delay of President Roh Moo Hyunâs government in Seoul to dispatch troops to Look closely at the statement: Iraq has generated a perception that South Korea may not be a reliable ally. Some American officers have wondered privately whether South Korea could be counted on if the U.S. got into hostilities with North Korea or China.

Can anyone imagine a scenario where North Korea and the US are militarily engaged without the presence of a large number of South Korea civilians? If the South Koreans would prefer to unilaterally surrender, it would be best if we pulled all the troops out. I would expect that there are many oppressed people in the world where the citizens would like some help protecting themselves. What would be wrong with moving troops to the Sudan to protect Christians from being killed, enslaved or horsewhipped by Sudanese Muslims? Protecting Christians from genocide would be a little bit of a different flavor for us.

Posted by Super Hose 2004-06-17 2:43:37 AM|| 2004-06-17 2:43:37 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 The southern position of Okinawa is distorted in the linked to map, cause Japan so far north? Sounds like one of them big circle deals. Better call in AP.

Posted by Shipman 2004-06-17 7:34:10 AM|| 2004-06-17 7:34:10 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Protecting Christians from genocide would be a little bit of a different flavor for us.

Can you imagine how berserk the left would go over that? I mean, half of them think Christians deserve genocide.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-06-17 8:09:15 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-06-17 8:09:15 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Good,step-up the time table.It is about time Korea and Euorpe got off the American Defense tit.Euorpe certainly has the tech to defend it self(as does Korea).The only question is does it have the will and disipline to do so.Korea has both the tech and a huge disiplined army capable of protecting it self(Hell the average ground pounder in the Korean Army is a black belt).
Sending troops to defend Sudanese Christians and Animists serves at least 2 purposes(1)It is the right thing to do(2)The Muslems would have cross-eyed apoplectic fits(to funny).

Posted by Raptor 2004-06-17 8:28:21 AM|| 2004-06-17 8:28:21 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 South Korea has a real threat just a few miles north, Europe has no real threat at the moment that warrants a dozen of armies of drafted men (and women). But the German defense minister (SPD but rather sane) has said that "the security of Germany is also defended at the Hindukush". Many LLL laugh about this but here is the future of European defense: Working together with the U.S. to bring stability to trouble zones that generate terrorism, and maybe acting alone to ensure stability in SE Europe (Kosovo, Moldova etc) and organizing humanitarian missions in Africa (European intervention in starving Darfur is long overdue). I see the future of the European military of excellently trained small fast response units. Should full blown invasions be necessary at some point, these should be done with joint U.S.-European forces.
Apart from terrorism, economic blackmail of rogue states or groups must be met with military resolve if need be. We will always pay for the oil we buy, but not for the oil we don't get. As the importance of oil exporters will rise in the next decade, we have a right to buy oil at fair prices unhindered. Artificially high blackmail prices or embargos are acts of economic warfare and must be dealt with accordingly.
Of course I hear the left yell out but when houses go cold and cars don't run anymore they will be the FIRST to whine that we're not doing anything.
Let's face it, Saudi Arabian oil will probably have to be safeguarded by Western troops sooner or later.

Posted by True German Ally 2004-06-17 9:54:05 AM|| 2004-06-17 9:54:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 yeah but while you say "Western Troops" the world hear's "American Troops", usa imports only 20% of it's energy (far lower than most nations), let the nations that import 40+% safe guard the oil. not that they will of course, they expect the great satan to do all the dirty work ( but in the name of NATO or UN or SUSA (Screw USA) )

Posted by dcreeper 2004-06-17 11:55:57 AM|| 2004-06-17 11:55:57 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 Only 20% of Germany's oil imports come from the ME as well but percentage will change, for us and for the U.S.

Posted by True German Ally 2004-06-17 12:05:02 PM|| 2004-06-17 12:05:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 I see the future of the European military of excellently trained small fast response units. Should full blown invasions be necessary at some point, these should be done with joint U.S.-European forces.

TGA, when you say "excellently trained small fast response units", are you thinking of small, combined-arms units, reinforced light infantry, or special forces?

Posted by Pappy 2004-06-17 3:35:46 PM|| 2004-06-17 3:35:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Did some measurements on the map in reference to the moving of US troops from Okinawa to Hokkaido.

Seoul SK to Hokkaido (say Sapporo) 750 NM
Seoul SK to Okinawa (say near Naha) 670 NM

Hokkaido would be more like Korea than Okinawa for training purposes.

Seoul to say Yokohama near Tokyo, 600 NM

Taipei, Taiwan to Okinawa, 270 NM

units are in nautical miles, equal to 1.15 statute miles.

Posted by Alaska Paul 2004-06-17 4:13:34 PM|| 2004-06-17 4:13:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 TGA, I welcome your analysis, but I wonder: will Germany and the other EU states reform their economies &/or commit sufficient funds to build a suitable defense capability. And if so, will it be interoperable with that of the US, or will Germany play along with France in dealing arms to/with China, against the US.

Because that's what I see emerging and it bothers the hell out of me to think that you all expect our treasure and our lives to be at the call when the threat gets ugly ... but that you can undercut us up until that point.

I know ... not your personal intent. But it sure looks like the country's and the EU's, if the French/German alliance keeps on its current path. And I use 'alliance' intentionally - when your countries have each others' ministers represent the other partner, that suggests a very close bond on Germany's part to France's stance and her open courting of Beijing to oppose the US.

Posted by rkb 2004-06-17 6:20:47 PM|| 2004-06-17 6:20:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 OK - "Americans Are Not Weclcome Here."

"Kim Jong Il will Start his Nationalization Here"

That is if the REM counts on the Geiger aren't too high from the item he previously used.

Do you like workin' in the rice patty collective, asshole?

Posted by BigEd 2004-06-17 7:25:22 PM|| 2004-06-17 7:25:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Well, at least they'll learn to like that pine-needle juche, .....idiots

Posted by Frank G 2004-06-17 7:46:06 PM|| 2004-06-17 7:46:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 RKB,I don't think France or Germany believes they are threatened w/invasion by anybody,nor do they plan on invading anybody for forseeable future.In this view they don't need a large defense capability.Just need top-quality light infantry,w/easily deployable light armor and some strike a/c.After all the infantry will only deploy as part of broad coalition in peacekeeping ops,so for near future airlift can be from US or charters(nice way funnel some funds to national airlines).Extra bonus,these are exactly what you'd want to put down internal disturbances.As for Gulf oil,as TGA points out US needs to keep that flowing for own needs,so why spend money for navy,expeditionary force when US is doing so-what's the US gonna do,not keep the oil flowing?If the worst happens,Europe will request more from North Sea,pay for more Russian pipelines and build pipelines to Trans-Caucausus oilfields.
France will sell to Russia,China,anybody to keep defence industry going and as alternative to US and US restrictions on weapons sales.

So Europe will get a "free ride" on defence spending,but the Capitols of Europe ask why should they spend money on vast Armies and Air Forces that have no possible foe to fight?And does the US really want a EuroNavy that might interfere w/US policy?The trade-off for US is,if US can convince West Europe the cause is just,W.E. will provide the troops,the US just has to get them there.

Posted by Stephen 2004-06-17 7:52:33 PM|| 2004-06-17 7:52:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 I'm in favor of moving the 37.000 troops out of Korea back to the US to guard our southern border. The divisions from Germany could take the Canadian border or Canada for that matter.

Posted by RWV 2004-06-17 9:50:34 PM|| 2004-06-17 9:50:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 I think, given the current world situation, it will be much easier for these countries to get US troops out than to get them to come back if they need them.

Posted by RWV 2004-06-17 9:52:24 PM|| 2004-06-17 9:52:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Stephen,

As for Gulf oil,as TGA points out US needs to keep that flowing for own needs,so why spend money for navy,expeditionary force when US is doing so-what's the US gonna do,not keep the oil flowing?

Well, we could start drilling in our Alaskan fields for domestic consumption only and in parallel, begin a crash construction program of nuclear power plants for electricity (or degrade air quality by allowing more coal to be mined domestically and burned for power).

It's a mistake to think that because policy and public opinion here haven't gotten to the point of taking such measures YET that they won't in the future. The problem with freeriding is that you need to be very careful not to take too much - doing so causes the "host" to collapse or generate a strong immune response.

I'm not sure it would be good for any of the countries if that happened -- but if it does, there are options the US could take that would leave us even more independent for at least several decades.

Posted by rkb 2004-06-17 10:00:03 PM|| 2004-06-17 10:00:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 RWV - I understand - that's why this sentiment was so appealing...

And following up...

[rant]
In some ways, both the native LLL zipperheads and the "international" multi-culti's had better be vewy vewy caweful, lest we decide they're "right" in some respects. The isolationism wouldn't end the way they think, however, for we would prolly toss the LLL's over the Northern Border just before we closed it - unless we decided we wanted to own the other side. The Exact Same could be true of the Southern Border, come to think of it. Lessee, it was "sea to shining sea" (East-West) on the first pass. This time, let's make it North Pole to The Equator. Then close up and tell everyone to pissthefuckoff.
[/rant]

Posted by .com 2004-06-17 10:03:37 PM|| 2004-06-17 10:03:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 RKB - I'm thinking Chavez and the Venezuelans~~/Cubans~~ aren't doing the best for the Venezuelan people, and maybe a relief team needs to be brought in...
Heh! I'm just saying...

Posted by Frank G 2004-06-17 10:05:45 PM|| 2004-06-17 10:05:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 Oh, and don't come 'round asking for contributions for the United Non-Governmental Organization of the Week, okay? Charity starts at home and all that .... we're sure you'll understand.

Posted by ditto 2004-06-17 10:06:03 PM|| 2004-06-17 10:06:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 Frank, Chavez clearly worries that will happen ....

I don't think so, not overtly and not unless the world changes a whole lot in the near future. Our relationship with Latin American countries is long and sometimes messy .... I don't think we need to complicate it more. We could, if necessary, do fast-build refinery construction here, which would reduce the attractiveness of Venezuelan refined oil products a fair amount. But as with most things, it's a matter of tradeoffs ... and the tradeoffs shift with events and attitudes over time.

Posted by rkb 2004-06-17 10:10:21 PM|| 2004-06-17 10:10:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 RKB,yes there is much the US could do if it didn't have Gulf oil,but there is virtually no way any of your suggestions could get passed in US as a substitute for Gulf Oil.Further,the US wants Gulf Oil flowing not just for itself and Europe,but also Japan and China.Western Europe is betting the US will have to keep Gulf open,that US will continue to act like Britain in the 1800's.

Posted by Stephen 2004-06-17 10:56:32 PM|| 2004-06-17 10:56:32 PM|| Front Page Top

05:46 The Dude
02:34 .com
02:24 badanov
02:00 The Dude
16:18 ex-con
08:41 Mike
04:56 .com
04:49 Capt America
04:46 Capt America
04:43 Capt America
04:42 Capt America
04:04 Super Hose
02:59 Atomic Conspiracy
02:40 .com
02:35 Super Hose
02:34 Zenster
02:28 Super Hose
01:57 therien
01:54 Zenster
01:48 rich woods
01:33 .com
01:26 Anonymous4617
01:26 .com
01:04 Mark Espinola